In a little noted portion of President Obama’s statement on the failure of his gun bill Wednesday, Sandy Hook father Mark Barden made a startling admission: The proposed background check system changes would not have saved any lives during the massacre.

In the statement, Barden said that “expanded background checks wouldn’t have saved our loved ones, but we still came to support the bipartisan proposal from two senators…” and claimed that 90 percent of Americans support it. Barden undoubtedly was handed that statistic by White House speechwriters. President Obama frequently used it during his campaign for gun control.

The claim is dubious, as only four percent of Americans rate gun control as a high priority, and millions of Americans are likely under the impression that we have no gun-purchasing background-check system at all. We can thank the media, which consistently reports error as fact when it comes to guns, and politicians who are only too happy to play and prey on low-information voters. President Obama has further muddied the waters by claiming that 40% of all gun purchases occur outside the background check system, a statistic that has been disproved time and again. The actual number is probably closer to 8%. The background-check system is reported to have stopped the Newtown killer from buying guns, so he stole them from his mother, whom he murdered. Criminals have a way of getting around laws.

My purpose here is not to harry Mr. Barden, who lost his son Daniel to a madman on December 14. The point of this post is to point out, again, that even the backers of the gun bill are aware that it would not have stopped the very crime that started the latest gun-control effort. The larger point is to point out how shameless and dishonest President Obama has been and continues to be throughout his gun-control campaign. There are Sandy Hook parents who disagree with the president’s gun-control push. He never acknowledges that they exist, and we seldom hear from them in the media.

“If it only saves one life,” the president says, then we must do what he tells us is “common sense” and pass a law that his own supporters admit would have changed nothing on that awful day.

How is it “common sense” to support a senseless law? How is it “common sense” to continue using statistics that have been proven to be false? How can the president who says we must change the law “if it only saves one life” then have no comment at all on a series of ghastly crimes — against children — that took place across 17 years under the guise of partial-birth abortion, a policy that Barack Obama supports and defends? If it only saves one life, should not that horrific practice be banned in America forever? Banning partial-birth abortion could save thousands, maybe millions.

The "save one child" meme of the left is laughable given their stance on abortion and the near total lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial by the MSM. It isn't about saving one child ... it isn't about saving anyone. It is all about disarming those that would stand in the way of the establishment of a leftist tryanny.

I look forward to my monthly issue of The American Rifleman, that section at the front on "Armed Citizens defending themselves" always makes me proud to be an American.

Maybe background checks can be done in a little different manner. What if everyone going to buy a gun had either a CC permit or an equivalent for larger weapons. Show the dealer your CC/Large permit and you can buy that gun without any computer connection to a 'temporary' database. The fact that you have that permit does not mean that you have a gun or guns.

"Common sense" as called for by the President, is highly over rated. Common sense is too often driven by hysteria as seen in the rush to infringe on gun rights without any discernible benefits except to potential tyrants. What we need is "uncommon sense" which this President obviously lacks.

I originally posted this on one of Kruiser's entries, but it's more apropos here: I am sorriest today (not sorry AT ALL for President Lightworker, in case you were wondering) for the parents of the Sandy Hook victims, because of how cynically and shabbily they have been used. No doubt many of them have been convinced that passage of a gun-control bill would assure that mass shootings would be ended once and for all... and therefore, their poor children's deaths would at least "mean something." The shadow side of that: With the defeat of this measure, does that mean their children "died in vain"? How cynical and cold must someone be to be able to set up grieving souls for further grief - and with a clear conscience, yet? Either the Dems and the media (forgive the redundancy) really thought this couldn't possibly lose, or... well, the word "wicked" comes to mind.

A background check prevented Lanza from acquiring a firearm legally, that's why he murdered his mother & then stole her guns to commit his atrocity. More laws won't prevent a lawbreaker from committing their crimes, to beleive otherwise is idiocy.....

Stiffer background checks might have prevented Sandy Hook--if it's understood that when you buy a gun and you know that you have an unstable person in your household that you can be charge as an accessory if you don't keep your weapon very secure. Those who say that this law wouldn't prevent the tragedy because the shooter stole the gun from his mother reasoning that criminals will get a hold of guns regardless. That is a weak argument and can be compared to dropping all the traffic laws because people will find a way to break them.

As far as your mention of partial birth abortion, which has no bearing on this subject of your article, the mother or her physician chose this to save the mother's life. The people who were shot were already born and part of a family who wanted them and will miss them very much.

It's beginning to look like maybe the people who stubbornly refuse to compromise on gun control might not be as "pro-life" as they would desperately have us all believe and may even enjoy the 'thrill of the hunt'.

Murder is still murder regardless if some politician says it isn't. As I recall, the persecution and round up of Jews only to be murdered in "deathcamps" was considered to be a duty to all good nazis. Your idealistic explanation of the choice to abort may be true in SOME cases but I know of far more abortions committed because it simply wasn't convenient to have the baby.

You muct live in a land filled with Elves and Faeries, I live in a town that has degraded socially as has most of the country. Since I reside in a state that has all of the regulations that were in this entire legislative package I gan guarantee they do nothing to stop criminals. Everytime someone is shot, or a store or bank is held up the perps are without exception, unlawfully in possession of a firearm. I don't know where they get them because I have owned an assortment of weapons for skeet, hunting, target and personal defense for the past 40 years and I haven't shot anyone or had any stolen. I have family member who were taken from me by gun violence. But I believe Marco Rubio said it best this past Sunday. We don't have a Gun Problem, we have a Violence Problem. That won't be solved by infringing in a right granted by the Second Amendment. Like the other 9 amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, they are not negotiable, EVER!

The "save one child" meme of the left is laughable given their stance on abortion and the near total lack of coverage of the Gosnell trial by the MSM. It isn't about saving one child ... it isn't about saving anyone. It is all about disarming those that would stand in the way of the establishment of a leftist tryanny.

I look forward to my monthly issue of The American Rifleman, that section at the front on "Armed Citizens defending themselves" always makes me proud to be an American.

Bryan - A most sensible column (as compared to Jonathon Tobin's in Commentary yesterday). There are only two ways to prevent more Sandy Hooks. One is to eliminate the brainless idea of gun-free zones and allow teachers and adminstrators to carry; the other way is to post guards with guns outside of the schools.

If we're going to use the "save one child" standard, I'm pretty sure that more children have been saved from intruders by parents with guns than were killed in all the school shootings over the last thirty years. Prove it? No, I won't pretend I can -- that would be "progressive" of me.For that matter, just since Sandy Hook, I recall a news report of a 12-year-old who defended herself wtih a gun against an intruder. So which "one life" are we going to save?